If the Washington Post didn't hear or see the tree fall, it still may have happened.
Remember the riddle: If a tree falls in the woods and no one was there to see or hear it, how do we know it really fell? The new answer is because of cell phone camera and Facebook and Twitter. Take the recent snow storm in Washington, DC was not only big news in the U.S., it made headlines in Europe. So did the Tweet-up Snow Ball fight with the gun toting off-duty officer. http://bit.ly/7Xz6kW
I saw it as a story and photo in a London newspaper. I was first struck by the fact that the Washington snowball fight was a web and Tweet-up public event. And I thought that 20 somethings didn't use Twitter. Not sure how many text messages played a part, but probably not very traditional land line calls were involved.
Fast forward to the snow ball fight and the off-duty officer didn’t like his Hummer being hit by snowballs. It wasn't a reporter from the Washington Post that saw him draw a weapon, it was a snowball revelers with cell phone cameras. http://bit.ly/7yiCSR
The cops issue the usual denials that he drew a gun. Not so, because photos and videos are on YouTube, blogs and pasted on a Facebook page and pretty soon the "traditional media" is picking it up. http://bit.ly/8ccFSh So, a London newspaper writes a story about a tweet-up and Facebook postings and calls it reporting.
Remember the more serious Virginia Tech shootings and the first videos on CNN were from a shakey cell phone. The early videos from demonstrations in Iran were from cell phones. The first information on the point is that in today's world every cell phone is a camera and every tweet could be global news.
Crisis communicators can't relax if an incident doesn't make it to traditional local news. Don't be paranoid, but monitor the news, Facebook, twitter and blogs.
It's probably a first, getting arrested for NOT tweeting. This also falls into the category of: be careful what you wish for, especially if it's on a social network.
Last week Def Jam record label executive James Roppo tweeted that 15-year-old Canadian pop singer sensation Justin Bieber would be signing autographs at a Long Island, NY mall clothing store. Screaming teeny-boppers began lining up as early as 7 hours before the event.
As the day grew longer, the crowd -- mostly pre-teens and teens -- reached an estimated 10,000. A sudden surge forward caused a stampede of youngsters worried they would not get in to see their idol. Police, fearing injuries, asked Roppo to re-tweet that the event was cancelled. He refused. It took tweets by Bieber himself, who was prevented by authorities from entering the Mall, to get word out to social networks for teens stay away from the event. "They are not allowing me to come into the mall," Bieber tweeted. "The event...is cancelled. I don't want anyone hurt."
Only minor injuries were reported. But Roppo was arrested by authorities and faces potential charges of reckless endangerment, criminal nuisance, obstruction of government administration and endangering the welfare of children. Def Jam Records later issued a statement citing the safety concerns of "the police and the Fire Marshal" that "prohibited the event from taking place."
Could it be, however, that the cause for the cancellation was the use of social media in the first place that excited young fans into a frenzy? The instantaneous delivery to thousands of tweeters enamored with the teen heartthrob, and their subsequent real-time re-tweeting of news of the Bieber appearance, might well have been its own firestorm in the making.
Another question -- about both the medium and the communication -- is what responsibility did Roppo or others have to continue communicating?
One of CommCore Consulting Group's first rules of communication is to consider all potential implications before you decide how to reach out. On reflection, might not Roppo and Bieber realized that exciting thousands of impressionable young fans at an instant on their mobile devices and computers could proliferate into a potential crisis? We wonder if Roppo was in essence shouting "fire" in what became a crowded theater, one of the exceptions to First Amendment rights. What do you think?
This week, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration will hold a public hearing on Social Media. The formal name of the hearing is Promotion of Food and Drug Administration-Regulated Medical Products Using the Internet and Social Media Tools (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-22618.htm).
Catchy name huh? But there's hope in the government speak. We all know how the internet and social media have dramatically changed our lives. They have provided access to information, research and data for patients and caregivers. We can be much better informed on almost all aspects of health and wellness.
Yet this explosion scares regulatory agencies such as the FDA. The Agency has enough on its plate with drug approvals, monitoring what's being used, tainted products like peanuts and spinach, dealing with approved marketing and promotion of products within label.
The hearing is the hottest ticket in DC this week. Only 60 speakers allowed, and 800 people asking for seats in an auditorium that only seats 300. From what we've heard, the FDA first wants to listen to different views - ranging from large pharmaceutical and medical device companies and their associations, to Google and Yahoo, to web site and content developers. The first day is more general, the second day is more focused on Adverse Events. After the hearings, the speakers will also add comments for the record. If you can't get there go to http://www.fdalive.com/webcast.cfm for the streaming video.
We believe that if the FDA decides it needs to create rules for social media, they should be as flexible as possible to accommodate technological changes and new applications. For example, if FDA had created rules last year, the Agency would already need to adjust due to the explosive growth of Twitter.
Here are some of the questions that FDA must grapple with:
If the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) can use Twitter, Facebook and other social media to communicate info on public health issues such as H1N1, why can't regulated drug and device companies use the same technology to communicate (perhaps with links to ensure fair balance)?
To what extent are companies responsible for technologies such as Sidewiki which make it look like information next to the company or product site might be viewed as company sponsored information? We doubt the FDA would risk a fight with Google and try to ban such web innovations?
How can Social Media help companies do a better monitoring AE's (adverse events) for their products?
Should companies be required to monitor the entire web for any mentions of their product?
We hope it's an informed and open discussion that helps FDA provide proper control and guidance for regulated products in a Wild West world.
The good news about social media is that it expands our information sources. The bad news is that the lack of editing and filtering can cause repercussions.
Take for example, professional athletes, who have taken up blogging and tweeting. We now have insights into training camp, games and other aspects of the sports and are not beholden to sports writers, and electronic media coverage for all of our information.
Now let's drill down to Washington Redskins linebacker Robert Henson. He tweeted his reactions to being booed by the hometown fans, calling the Redskin faithful "dim wits".. He also tweeted: "The question is who are you to say you know what's best for the team and you work 9 to 5 at Mcdonalds." http://tinyurl.com/y9sb2pk
Now that's a sure way to go viral and the equivalent of a referee's whistle (dare we say "tweet") for a 15 yard social media penalty. In soccer, this might get at least a yellow card, maybe a red card.
Where are the sports agents and managers who work so hard to get the big contracts? The sports world believes in extensive practice to develop skills for maximum performance in a game. Why wouldn't athletes think and reflect for a second before tweeting.
There's more and more instant replay and review of sports - football, baseball, hockey, tennis, horse racing - all have ways to review a call and get it right.
Maybe athletes and celebrities should take a page from their own practice books and think before tweeting.
Twitter Accountability and Longevity: What's the Future of Twittering Versus Fact-Checked Journalism?
Twitter doesn't claim to compete with The New York Times or The Washington Post, but it can have similar influence on - can even be a maker or breaker of - an organization's or an individual's reputation. But, could "Tweets" soon be cast aside as rumor and unfounded hype? Or will tweets gain power and influence?
Tony La Russa seems to think that either way, tweets shouldn't be ignored. The St. Louis Cardinals manager filed suit in San Francisco, CA Superior Court claiming that Twitter allowed a fake account to be set up under La Russa's name with demeaning and derogatory updates about current and former players - that has caused irreparable damage to his reputation. Should Twitter and/or the person who opened the fake account be liable?
It seems that many people feel that tough-talk-twittering amounts to merely off-the-cuff, inconsequential speech as opposed to measured and leveraged assaults that can cause real damage. So, tweeters should feel free to say anything they want.
Apparently, you can even feel free to criticize the President. Sen. Chuck Grassley posted a scathing tweet about President Obama's demand for action on healthcare reform: "Pres Obama you got nerve while u sightseeing in Paris to tell us 'time to deliver' on health care. We still on skedul/even workinWKEND."
But, we're talking about just 140 characters max, so any damage would be limited, right? Wrong. As Time Magazine pointed out, Twitter is being used as a "pointing device," sharing links to articles and videos and other longer-form pieces. This all extends the interest and influence. In fact, let me point you to that interesting Time article: http://tinyurl.com/pr9qg5
Are there no consequences to tweeting? If there are none, should there be? Also, will tweeting last and even continue to expand? What is your opinion?
As bloggers, we know that social media is a fluid environment. When attacked, companies and organizations must decide whether to respond quickly to negative sentiment, or wait to assess their response.
Some argue that the percentage of the overall population actively engaging in social media tools like Twitter, Facebook and Digg - though growing - has not yet reached critical mass. But here's the question: is it already a significant enough number, or a critically important enough audience, to warrant constant serious attention by professional communicators?
Was it worth it for Johnson & Johnson's Motrin to pull its controversial ad because of the uproar it caused on Twitter and blogs? According to Ad Age, citing Lightspeed Research, almost 90% of women never saw the ad. Surveys show that more attention was paid to the surrounding crisis and swift corporate reaction versus the ads themselves.
"Too often, communicators act too soon without listening to who are doing the chatting and what it really means to their brand. Sometimes communicators are completely absent from the conversation," remarks social media expert Howard Greenstein.
In contrast, Amazon is currently in the middle of how to continue to react. They had to act quickly last weekend when angry authors (and supporters) of gay and lesbian books whose works were de-listed from the sales charts launched a Twitter-offensive over the Easter holiday weekend. Tagged #amazonfail, thousands posted angry online sentiments about Amazon. Even people who aren't necessarily fans of the de-listed books or authors joined the fray. So far, Amazon is claiming no policy change and that the de-listing was likely due to an algorithm glitch. Amazon called it "an embarrassing and ham-fisted cataloguing error." (sic) Question: are they communicating enough? How much would be too much? And are they listening enough first?
In crisis communications, we often talk about the "Golden Hour" a period of time in which you can gather information and respond. It is a phrase from emergency medicine which says that you don't have tons of time, but a little more time than you think. The first five minutes of gut instinct panic responses could lead to the wrong actions in medicine. Taking a little bit more time - but not too much - allows for finding out more data and information, and a more informed response. In social media, we're watching to see if the "golden hour" principle is the rule or the exception.
What has your experience been with social media and situations involving businesses and their services or products that may, or may not, be crises? Do you believe that a quick corporate response is essential even if the scope and scale of the social media conversation remains unclear? Is it enough to respond quickly online, or is immediate corporate action essential as well?
An online message only 140 characters long can create a world of trouble. That's what Ketchum PR's VP and Director of its Interactive Services Division James Andrews found out while in Memphis last week after he typed the following message onto social media website Twitter: 'True confession but I'm in one of those towns where I scratch my head and say, 'I would die if I had to live here.' "
That he was on his way to meet with Ketchum client FedEx which is headquartered in Memphis seems to have been the catalyst for what followed.
Typically, I first found out about it via a tweet from Tweeter @davidhenderson. Andrews found out much more quickly than that. First, some Tweeters posted objections on Twitter, forcing Andrews to respond in typical (and in this case unclear) Twitter short-hand: "My commentary on my arrival was based on encountering ppl who didn't want me at hotel vs the city. Sorry."
Then came the big one: a fellow Tweeter and FedEx employee who earlier had attended a presentation by Andrews to FedEx, wrote an e-mail to Andrews that he also copied to the entire senior management of both FedEx and Ketchum.
He wrote in part: "We do not know the total millions of dollars FedEx Corporation pays Ketchum annually for the valuable and important work your company does for us around the globe. We're confident however, it is enough to expect a greater level of respect and awareness form someone in your position as vice president at a major global player in your industry. A hazard of social networking is that people read what you write."
He went on to write: "James, everyone at today's event, including those in the auditorium with you this morning, just received their first paycheck of 2009 containing a 5% pay cut which we wholeheartedly support because it continues the tradition established by [FedEx Founder Fred Smith] of doing whatever it takes to protect jobs. [M]any of us question the expense of paying Ketchum to produce the video open for today's event, work that could have been achieved by internal, award-winning professionals."
In a subsequent blog posting, Andrews apologized: "Two days ago I made a comment on Twitter that was an emotional response to a run-in I had with an intolerant individual. The tweet was aimed at the individual, not the city of Memphis. If I offended the residents of Memphis, TN, I'm sorry. That was not my intention. I understand that people have enormous pride in their hometown."
He then tried to spin the incident into an example of the constructive function of social media: "While some would say this is the evil side of social media, I would say its pure intention is to foster a back and forth dialogue between people rather than a shield to hide behind and replace human contact."
I imagine that in the emotional aftermath of an unpleasant incident he broke a cardinal rule of blogging: he transmitted his Tweet while still upset. While hardly an indictment of social media, it is a stark reminder of the importance of the evolving new social media communications rules and protocols that must be adhered to; ignore or forget them at your peril.
In truth, the rule that we at CommCore insist on for our clients applies to ALL communications: think before you speak. Remember Secretary of State Al Haig's "I'm in control here" gaffe when President Reagan was shot?
From what we can tell FedEx is keeping Ketchum on as its agency, and Andrews still has his job.
What's your take? What does this incident say to you about the risks and benefits of social media in general, and the short-hand micro-blogging of Twitter?
MEDIAtor Blog
